EN World EN5ider has launched! EN World EN5ider is the new way to get regular gaming articles and adventures online. For a small monthly donation, you will receive rules articles, gaming advice, adventures, and more. Collect EN World EN5ider articles and adventures designed and formatted to be filed in a binder.

Gygax on Realism in Game Design

Since we're going back to the beginning, I decided to unearth the beginning, and actually read some stuff in high Gygaxese. I'm beginning to think I might have liked Gary, tendency for long-winded, slightly pompous rants aside.

Interestingly, most of the variant systems which purport to “improve” the game are presented under the banner of realism. I have personally come to suspect that this banner is the refuge of scoundrels; whether the last or first refuge is immaterial. “Realism” has become a bugaboo in the hobby, and all too many of the publishers — TSR included — make offerings to this god too frequently.

...

When fantasy games are criticized for being “unrealistic” — and by fantasy I certainly mean both imaginary “science fiction” games and heroic fantasy — the sheer magnitude of the misconception absolutely astounds me! How can the critic presume that his or her imagined projection of a non existent world or conjectured future history is any more “real” than another’s? While science fantasy does have some facts and good theories to logically proceed from, so that a semblance of truth can be claimed for those works which attempt to ground themselves on the basis of reality for their future projections, the world of “never-was” has no such shelter. Therefore, the absurdity of a cry for “realism” in a pure fantasy game seems so evident that I am overwhelmed when such confronts me. Yet, there are those persistent few who keep demanding it. The “camel” of working magic, countless pantheons of gods and devils, monsters that turn people to stone or breath fire, and characters that are daily faced with Herculean challenges which they overcome by dint of swordplay and spell casting is gulped down without a qualm. It is the “gnat” of "unrealistic” combat, or “unrealistic” magic systems, or the particular abilities of a class of characters in the game which makes them gag.

...

D&D is a make-believe game. It is designed, however, to facilitate close personal involvement in all aspects of play; this makes suspension of disbelief easier for those who can initially accept a game form which does not relate to any reality except a few tenuous areas... It is a game for the imaginative and fanciful, and perhaps for those who dream of adventure and derring-do in a world all too mundane. As a game must first and foremost be fun, it needs no claim to “realism” to justify its existence.

Don't bring Gary into this. He was less than fond of 3e, and we can probably be safe in saying he would have been less kind about 4E. He would be laughing his ass off reading the threads in this forum.

You need to quote Cook, Tweet,Heinsoo, Mearls, and others if you want to Edition War about how 5e is shaping up or should.

I wiuld just keep in mind that the discussion about reaism and gaminess were very different at the time he said that. People were making intricate and extraordinary attempts toward realism that you just dont really see today. I dont know that one can take a 30 year old quote from Gary and assume it sheds much light on what the man would have though about current discussions concerning things ike martial encounter powers or putting game play considerations ahead of setting considerations. I think he was really talking more against attempts to break combat into detailed and realistic mechanics.

But, If I were to judge that writing as I do others here and now, well, he didn't seem to have a lot of confidence in his own position. If you have to *start* the piece by calling people names (even highfalutin' names like "scoundrel") then perhaps your point isn't nearly as strong as you think it is...

If you have to *start* the piece by calling people names (even highfalutin' names like "scoundrel") then perhaps your point isn't nearly as strong as you think it is...

This, very much. And I would disagree about the 'mildly pompous', too. He is VERY pompous, as a rule.

And considering the fact that he himself produced several rule-systems that got frequently house-ruled out because they were too cumbersome in attempting 'realism' (notably weapon speed factors), quite possibly he should be less ready to throw stones.

"All right, I am not the Shadow. You have nothing at all to worry about. Except, oh, wait, I'm pointing a gun at you."

I think the word "realism" is used by different people to mean different things:

- consistency/reliability of the rules, meaning that if I can do X in situation Y, more or less I expect to be able X again if Y repeats at a later date; I don't think "realism" is exactly the same as "consistency" but sometimes the word is used for this

- support of suspension of disbelief: yes, there can be hydras in a small room and it's up to you to figure out how it's possible... but if the DM exaggerates with the quantity (especially if then she repeatedly doesn't deliver an explanation at all) it may just be too absurd for many people to take

- correspondence with real-life expectations: if you crit someone in the eye with a sword and he doesn't die... the problem is if you start feeling unable to make predictions on even basic phenomena, because most of the times predictions are the starting point of a tactical choice

- differentiation of details: having 10 types of rapiers with slightly different rules can be a boon to someone's campaign and totally boring to someone else; you can't really criticise either way, it's just a matter of gaming style and preference

I suppose Gygax had in mind certain gamers who can be obsessed with any of the above, which of course can become detrimental to everybody's fun at the table if they don't share the same preference. But I hardly believe he was against any level of realism... to me his early editions of D&D even had more realism than I can personally take, with all those rules subsystems and tables for everything!

"There is no survival without order, there is no evolution without chaos.""You have to see past the RAW to understand the rules of the game.""And rules are OVERRATED by the way!

This, very much. And I would disagree about the 'mildly pompous', too. He is VERY pompous, as a rule.

And considering the fact that he himself produced several rule-systems that got frequently house-ruled out because they were too cumbersome in attempting 'realism' (notably weapon speed factors), quite possibly he should be less ready to throw stones.

Note that some of those systems were included only at the urging of others and he himself did not use them. Not sure about WSF but initiative, morale and psionics leap to mind. And I'd be fairly certain that this was a point of view he wrote as much as 30 years ago. Pretty sure that if speaking on the same subjects again just before his death he'd have been a hell of a lot more temperate.